PHILADELPHIA – The School District of Philadelphia has won summary judgment dismissal in a lawsuit brought by a former teacher and member of the LGBTQ community who claimed she faced discrimination and retaliation by the District before being fired.
Ciana Evans of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 11 versus the School District of Philadelphia.
According to her complaint, Evans, an African-American female and member of the LGBTQ community, was appointed as a teacher on July 4, 2020, and served at Delaplaine McDaniel School. She claimed that in June of 2021, the principal, Betsaida Ortiz, notified her that she was suspended without pay for “unsatisfactory performance/ineffective teaching.”
Evans alleged she was suspended due to her race, sex and disabilities, which include diabetes and anxiety, in retaliation for her complaints regarding discrimination. Evans further alleged that Ortiz continually harassed and discriminated against women of color and women in the LGBTQ community.
She further alleged Ortiz spoke to her in a hostile manner, failed to provide her with the curriculum and materials for her class, and called her “stupid” and a “smart-a–.”
Evans also claimed Ortiz came into her class and was rude, disruptive and interrogated her in front of her students – and that Ortiz terminated her in May of 2021, in retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodations for her disability.
In a June 21 answer to the complaint, the District countered the allegations failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted and that it provided “a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for their alleged employment decisions”, among other defenses.
The District’s proffered reasons for termination Evans was “unsatisfactory teaching performance and failure to meet standards.”
On Nov. 14, the District filed a motion for summary judgment in the case.
“Summary judgment is warranted on all of Evans’ claims because the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support her charges of intentional race, gender or disability discrimination – or retaliation. Notably, Evans did not serve any discovery on the School District. The record contains no legally significant comparator evidence. Instead, Evans relies primarily on her own unsupported beliefs and conclusory statements to support her claims of discrimination and retaliation,” the motion stated.
“The School District’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for recommending her for termination, on the other hand, are well-documented in the record. Each of Evans’ claims fail for the same basic reason: the decision to recommend her for termination was not motivated by her race, gender or alleged disability status. Because no reasonable jury could find for Evans on the established record, the School District respectfully moves the Court for summary judgment on all counts of the complaint.”
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Mark A. Kearney granted the District’s summary judgment motion and dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims, in a memorandum opinion handed down on Dec. 13.
“We today review a claim by a Black woman hired as a new teacher to fill an emergency need in the 2020-2021 school year and then fired at the end of the school year. She alleges the District did not retain her because of her race and sex. The District told her of problems in her first couple months and afforded multiple corrective opportunities. The new teacher responded to one corrective mid-year suggestion with an immediate February 2021 grievance to the teachers’ union. The teacher does not adduce evidence the District’s decision to fire her in June 2021 is based on her race or sex. She instead cites (almost exclusively) a post-termination fulsome District-led investigation of her school principal, leading the District to conclude the principal created an antagonistic workplace by offending persons of all races and ethnicities, but could find no basis for race, se or any other protected category towards the teacher or others. The undeterred teacher now asks us to second-guess the District’s personnel decisions and assume it is liable for race and sex discrimination and retaliatory conduct because the school principal offended everyone. We cannot join her in this leap absent evidence,” Kearney said.
“The teacher does not adduce evidence beyond her speculations a principal creating an antagonistic work environment would fire her based on her race and sex or in retaliation for a union grievance four months earlier. But the allegedly-abusive principal does not decide who is terminated; she and another supervisor can only recommend retention or termination. The teacher adduces no evidence the principal sought to fire her based on her race or sex. The teacher admits the other supervisor recommending termination is not culpable in her termination. The teacher adduces no evidence of a causal connection between the District’s June 2021 decision to terminate her one year of employment and the teacher’s February 2021 union grievance. We grant the District’s motion for summary judgment, as there are no genuine issues of material fact precluding judgment as a matter of law on the teacher’s race and sex disparate treatment and retaliation claims.”
The plaintiff was represented by Robert T. Vance Jr. of the Law Offices of Robert T. Vance Jr., in Philadelphia.
The defendant was represented by Kristen Diane Junod of the School District of Philadelphia’s Office of General Counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01410
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com